Any atheists here who were once believers?

[wegs]

It's not enough to duplicate consciousness with a computer program. People like dmoe and Q could be replaced by a computer, and nobody would know the difference. They would fail the Turing test.

Oh, I hope if dmoe and (Q) see this...they laugh. lol

Everyone does. That's because people's typical, day-to-day behavior, their quirks and their unconscious routines, are dictated by societal influences which may or may not be (and usually aren't, since most of us live in secular societies) in line with a particular worldview. For instance, I always get a bit of a karmic buzz when I do something bad. Not because I believe in karma, but because I was raised in a society that holds to axioms such as "What goes around comes around," and "You get what you deserve."

And it goes for simpler things, too. I say "God bless you," when someone sneezes. Well, I stopped saying the "God" part early in my adulthood, but I still say "bless you," which amounts to the same thing. It's a courtesy.

I know for a fact there are Christians who curse with Jesus' name, and conservative Muslims who gets sloppy drunk. There are atheists who wear the same socks every day during their favorite team's winning streaks, and agnostics who pray when they're really in a pinch. Not adhering absolutely to one's worldview means nothing in terms of the validity of those beliefs, and it's ridiculous to suggest it does. Especially since I'm sure you violate the rules of whatever splinter faction you belong to but are too ashamed to admit.

*applause*
Nicely said, Balerion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wooooah...no one is "failing to acknowledge"



Har har

You state this as if you believe an atheist/agnostic isn't looking at the bigger picture...just. like. you.

well if you insist on drawing a comparison with religion on the basis of things that are not intrinsically religious, what gives?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

He didn't say that. Address the point being made, not some straw man you've built in its place.

read his post again to find out why you are mistaken

So being an atheist means one can't have an opinion of how society should function? They can't have values or ideals?

If they want to talk about it being bereft of issues of belief and ideology, then no

You're going to have to explain that one. I mean, you won't, obviously, but you should.

once again, if you read things instead of giving way to your STD (Spontaneous trolling disorder), it wouldn't be necessary

:shrug:

Everyone does. That's because people's typical, day-to-day behavior, their quirks and their unconscious routines, are dictated by societal influences which may or may not be (and usually aren't, since most of us live in secular societies) in line with a particular worldview. For instance, I always get a bit of a karmic buzz when I do something bad. Not because I believe in karma, but because I was raised in a society that holds to axioms such as "What goes around comes around," and "You get what you deserve."

And it goes for simpler things, too. I say "God bless you," when someone sneezes. Well, I stopped saying the "God" part early in my adulthood, but I still say "bless you," which amounts to the same thing. It's a courtesy.

I know for a fact there are Christians who curse with Jesus' name, and conservative Muslims who gets sloppy drunk. There are atheists who wear the same socks every day during their favorite team's winning streaks, and agnostics who pray when they're really in a pinch. Not adhering absolutely to one's worldview means nothing in terms of the validity of those beliefs, and it's ridiculous to suggest it does. Especially since I'm sure you violate the rules of whatever splinter faction you belong to but are too ashamed to admit.

not sure how all this has any bearing on teh discussion of "ultimate takes on world views"

The person. The collection of matter standing in front of you. Just because we're reducible to atoms doesn't mean that a collection of atoms in the form of a human being has no value.

so what specific atoms are absent from a dead person (assuming you aren't in the habit of speaking to dead people)?

What kind of psychopathy is required to even suggest such a thing?

None at all.
Its only when fools insist on advocating an ultimate world view that seems intrinsic to the unhinged that it is required

That seems to be a non-sequitur. What point are you attempting to make with this exact example?

I'm not sure what difficulty you are having here .. but then this wouldn't be the first time your questioning has warranted a special sort of psychopathy
Most people acknowledge (even if only theoretically) that their genealogical parents were involved in their conception

 

[wegs]

By 'self', I mean the part that is you, the observer of everything you experience.

jan.

Are you speaking of a soul, Jan?

Is that so? So where did the big bang singularity come from?

Have patience, science will figure it out and should they not, atheists are "ok" saying...we don't know.
Theists chant "God caused it!"

So the question becomes...what is God? How did he come to be?
I know you talk a lot about "something couldn't have come from nothing."
Then, what is God?

Religion brings solace and comfort to many.

So can a trip to the spa.
I hear you. But, I guess my contention is, similar to what that poster Seattle posted--is religion our own wishful thinking? When I was "religious" I experienced joy but much despair. There is something real about letting go OF god, and letting life take hold of me as it should. If things "go wrong," I accept it and work with it and move to a solution. Prayer can be good but sometimes it stifles action.

But there are cruel and evil people who don't want this to happen.

Who?

My observation that other animals (i.e. cats, dogs, apes, squirrels) appear to be conscious tells me that it is a part of evolution.

me too.

My other observation that various chemicals (i.e. mind altering substances and other drugs) can have such a profound and predictable effect on the mental processes/consciousness convinces me that it is based in the physical/chemical processes of the brain. Honestly, both of these seem obvious to me.

Ha, that's a great take on it.
How about when someone's heart flatlines in a hospital ...what do you think happens to the person's consciousness? (I'm speaking of people who flatline and then "come back.") you're saying this has a solid physical/scientific explanation.

I only ask because there's a lot of conflicting information circulating about "consciousness."

 

[Seattle]

Meh
As if atheism magically defaults to a broad world view ...

Religion, by definition, is closed since it already has all of the answers. If someone is basing their views on evidence of some sort they are open to such evidence rather than being wedded to a specific conclusion or result.

perhaps that would be a relevant is atheists never ventured their ideas beyond that of their brethren (atheistic) rocks and furniture (which also happen to embody an absence of belief) that would be valid.

This proves my point. It's an insincere comment that is being resorted to rather than dealing with real issues. "Rocks as brethren of atheists"..."those unbelieving rocks"...this is just stupid

Instead we see hosts of atheists being practically unable to keep their mouths shut when the moment the mere suggestion of social convention/institution (or "how we really should organize society's ideas and values") comes to the fore

Your writing style isn't very clear here. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I can guarantee the most anal of advocates of reductionist world views operate on a day to day basis that violates this supposedly ultimate take of theirs on world views.

When you say "hello" to someone, what materially verifiable attribute are you saying it too?
(their eyebrows, the mole on their chin, their big toe?)

Or why do you accept certain people as your genealogical parents despite a complete absence of material verification (I mean its not like you witnessed your conception)

Again, this is just non-sense..."reductionist world view" how do I know who I'm talking to...

I guess, talking to "God" and talking to a person standing in front of me are "equivalent"? Both are just perceptions? Again, this is the insincere legalistic debating nonsense I was talking about.

The do however become non-believers in who they accept as objects of love.
in fact there is an entire branch of law that thrives on this popular vacillation of belief ...

The idea was that love is intangible as is God. Theists try to equate the two as the same in kind. Since everyone believes in love the argument goes why is God any different. I pointed out that it's different because people don't become unbelievers in the concept of love.

Your response is to bring up divorce or falling out of love. What does that have to do with what we are talking about? We are talking about the concept of love. People don't have doubt regarding that concept. That is different in kind from the intangible concept of religion.

I won't continue to address point by point the rest of your remarks as it seems like wasted effort. You are proving my earlier points by the insincerely of your remarks.

 

[Robittybob1]

@ wegs - if you want to find God's truth doing LG 's way I suggest will drive you mental. I suggest it isn't found by looking for it. I suggest it is found by stepping out in faith, that even a child can do it.

 

[Mazulu]

Where are bacteria? Can you see them, touch them? You're scientifically illiterate, Mazulu, and bordering on stupid. Think before you post.

The switching system in your brain made a mistake. You got confused. Let me help you. You said ALL things in reality are material. I showed you there were exceptions, like the space-time continuum, wave-functions, dark matter, the mechanisms that enforce the physics constants, etc... Then you got confused and thought I was referring to bacteria.

I asked you to define what you meant by "material" and you got all catty.


If you had any personal integrity, you would say, "Yes, Mazulu, you are right. There are some things in nature that are not material."

 

[Mazulu]

Have patience, science will figure it out and should they not, atheists are "ok" saying...we don't know.
Theists chant "God caused it!" So the question becomes...what is God? How did he come to be? I know you talk a lot about "something couldn't have come from nothing."
Then, what is God?

wegs,
God is my heat shield. God allows me to defend the faithful from scientism. Beyond that, I am still discovering reality just as you are.

 

[Seattle]

There are some things that aren't material but there is evidence for them and they aren't supernatural. Some of the things you mention are material and others aren't anything (aren't material or supernatural) like constants. Constants are just math.

Everyone agrees that love, happiness aren't material. It's the supernatural that the arguments are about.

 

[Mazulu]

There are some things that aren't material but there is evidence for them and they aren't supernatural. Some of the things you mention are material and others aren't anything (aren't material or supernatural) like constants. Constants are just math. Everyone agrees that love, happiness aren't material. It's the supernatural that the arguments are about.

Seattle, you have more personal integrity than Baleron. I salute you. Now let me address your points. How do you know that the supernatural does not exist? Look at the definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=supernatural+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a[/url]]su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: supernatural

1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"
synonyms: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More
rareextramundane
"supernatural powers"
ghostly, phantom, spectral, otherworldly, unearthly, unnatural
"a supernatural being"
unnaturally or extraordinarily great.
"a woman of supernatural beauty"

noun
noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals

1.
manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

Now I've seen an apparition, I've seen psychic phenomena, lot's of people have. But more importantly, is whatever it was that caused the big bang, will it fit the definition? Is it beyond the laws of physics? Nobody has any idea what caused it, so it must. Can it be attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding? Absolutely.

 

[Balerion]

The switching system in your brain made a mistake. You got confused. Let me help you. You said ALL things in reality are material. I showed you there were exceptions, like the space-time continuum, wave-functions, dark matter, the mechanisms that enforce the physics constants, etc...

You didn't show me anything. You simply claimed that they were immaterial, but provided no explanation beyond that. Feel free to demonstrate (ie "show") us what, precisely, is immaterial about any of the things you mention. On top of that, I'd love for you to define those concepts, because I have a feeling that you don't even know what they are.

Then you got confused and thought I was referring to bacteria.

It's you who is confused, Maz. You attempted to say gravitons are immaterial because you can't touch or feel them, put them in a jar. I pointed to bacteria, something you obviously wouldn't debate the existence of, or the material nature of, as suffering from that same problem. Understand now?

I asked you to define what you meant by "material" and you got all catty.

Catty? Awww! Did I hurt the big, bad sledgehammer's feelings?

I answered your question. Have some integrity and answer mine. Be as catty as you'd like. I'm not as sensitive as you.

If you had any personal integrity, you would say, "Yes, Mazulu, you are right. There are some things in nature that are not material."

If you had any personal integrity, you'd support your claims with something other than more claims. You know, actually make an argument for their validity? But we both know you can't do that, and instead of simply admitting you're out of your depth here, you're going to strut around like you've won something.

 

[Seattle]

Seattle, you have more personal integrity than Baleron. I salute you. Now let me address your points. How do you know that the supernatural does not exist? Look at the definition.



Now I've seen an apparition, I've seen psychic phenomena, lot's of people have. But more importantly, is whatever it was that caused the big bang, will it fit the definition? Is it beyond the laws of physics? Nobody has any idea what caused it, so it must. Can it be attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding? Absolutely.

You have seen or experienced something that you don't understand. If you can test it then it's psychic phenomena. If it's not testable or repeatable under the same circumstances then it's just something in your head that you can't identify.

True psychic phenomena (if that were to actually exist) would be testable in a double blind test. That has never been achieved however.

People see things all the time. People in a group even see different things all the time. Some people see lights that they don't understand and they are sure it's a flying saucer. Others identify the lights as coming from a weather balloon.

What came before the Big Bang? I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. Can it be attributed to some force beyond our current scientific understanding...sure. As I said...you and I don't know.

Not knowing, not knowing what physics we may (or may not) discover in the future is not the same as saying that it's supernatural.

When one doesn't (and can't know) it's not reasonable to make up something in the supernatural. It may seem reasonable to you if you insert "God" there but the logic is exactly the same if you insert "Mr. Bunny Rabbit" there.

You (I'm going out on a limb here) are pretty sure (not positive) that Mr. Bunny Rabbit isn't behind the Big Bang (as am I) but you can't be certain (nor can I).

The problem with the religious argument is that you (again I'm guessing) and others are much more certain that God is behind the Big Bang than you are of it being Mr. Bunny Rabbit and you shouldn't be.

 

[Mazulu]

You didn't show me anything. You simply claimed that they were immaterial, but provided no explanation beyond that. Feel free to demonstrate (ie "show") us what, precisely, is immaterial about any of the things you mention. On top of that, I'd love for you to define those concepts, because I have a feeling that you don't even know what they are.

Baleron, don't waste my time. Seattle demonstrated intellectual honesty and personal integrity. YOU DID NOT! Get over it.

It's you who is confused, Maz. You attempted to say gravitons are immaterial because you can't touch or feel them, put them in a jar. I pointed to bacteria, something you obviously wouldn't debate the existence of, or the material nature of, as suffering from that same problem. Understand now?
Catty? Awww! Did I hurt the big, bad sledgehammer's feelings?
I answered your question. Have some integrity and answer mine. Be as catty as you'd like. I'm not as sensitive as you.

If you had any personal integrity, you'd support your claims with something other than more claims. You know, actually make an argument for their validity? But we both know you can't do that, and instead of simply admitting you're out of your depth here, you're going to strut around like you've won something.

You lost your personal integrity. Right or wrong, good or bad, Seattle made you look bad. Redeem yourself if you can.

 

[Balerion]

read his post again to find out why you are mistaken

I read his post the first time. You're straw manning.

If they want to talk about it being bereft of issues of belief and ideology, then no

So one's beliefs and ideologies must be derived wholly and directly from their belief or unbelief in a creator deity? You're going to have to explain why this is necessarily so.

once again, if you read things instead of giving way to your STD (Spontaneous trolling disorder), it wouldn't be necessary

In other words, you can't explain it.

:shrug:

not sure how all this has any bearing on teh discussion of "ultimate takes on world views"

I sincerely doubt that. But, since you're going to play that game, let me explain for those following along: Your claim was that a particular worldview is invalid because its adherence can't actually adhere to it in their everyday lives. I demonstrated that people's absolute adherence to a worldview in practice is irrelevant, and certainly not indicative of the validity of that worldview.

so what specific atoms are absent from a dead person

No atoms are missing. Well, unless they were blown up or liquefied or something. What's missing is consciousness, which is an emergent property of the physical brain.

(assuming you aren't in the habit of speaking to dead people)?

No, I leave that hokum to the religious.

None at all.
Its only when fools insist on advocating an ultimate world view that seems intrinsic to the unhinged that it is required

What exactly are you saying here? That atheism as a worldview is, what, for crazy people? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm not sure what difficulty you are having here .. but then this wouldn't be the first time your questioning has warranted a special sort of psychopathy

Opt for clarity. The train wreck above, for example, is not the best way to go about making people understand you. I know your vocabulary is limited, but make the effort.

Most people acknowledge (even if only theoretically) that their genealogical parents were involved in their conception

Hmm. I wonder what makes you think repeating the example is going to shed any more light on what point is being made.

Could you try answering the question I posed to you?

 

[Mazulu]

You have seen or experienced something that you don't understand. If you can test it then it's psychic phenomena. If it's not testable or repeatable under the same circumstances then it's just something in your head that you can't identify.

I saw this,

Without the wings, without the skeleton hands, without the moon. But it was still impressive, exhilarating and scary. It was awesome! There was a sleep paralysis component that occurred after I became aware of it (not before).

 

[Balerion]

Baleron, don't waste my time. Seattle demonstrated intellectual honesty and personal integrity. YOU DID NOT! Get over it.

No, Seattle spoke from emotion, not from reason. He said stupid things like "Everybody knows that love isn't material" when in reality love is a chemical reaction within the brain.

And enough with the all-caps. Are you a child? Stop having a tantrum on the forums. Have some self-respect, for Christ's sake.

You lost your personal integrity. Right or wrong, good or bad, Seattle made you look bad. Redeem yourself if you can.

Seattle made himself look bad by conflating emotion for science. You made yourself look bad by--well, really, when haven't you made yourself look bad? You certainly look like a coward by failing to answer my questions at every opportunity.

Seriously, can anyone explain to me why Mazulu is so afraid to answer my questions?

 

[Robittybob1]

I saw this,

Without the wings, without the skeleton hands, without the moon. But it was still impressive, exhilarating and scary. It was awesome! There was a sleep paralysis component that occurred after I became aware of it (not before).

So you saw the Angel of Death - fuck that! not a good sign at all.
I'd much prefer to have Michael the Archangel between me and Death.

 

[Mazulu]

No, Seattle spoke from emotion, not from reason. He said stupid things like "Everybody knows that love isn't material" when in reality love is a chemical reaction within the brain. And enough with the all-caps. Are you a child? Stop having a tantrum on the forums. Have some self-respect, for Christ's sake.

What's wrong with emotions? Are you a machine? Not at all, you pass the Turing test. I can tell you are pissed off. But the truth is, Seattle made you look intellectually dishonest. That's not his fault, he's a good man. You made yourself look dishonest. That's on you.

Seattle made himself look bad by conflating emotion for science. You made yourself look bad by--well, really, when haven't you made yourself look bad? You certainly look like a coward by failing to answer my questions at every opportunity.

What was your question? About the bacteria? Yeah, if there's too many, it becomes a slime. It was a completely irrelevant question.

Seriously, can anyone explain to me why Mazulu is so afraid to answer my questions?

Your question was a red herring anway. You still haven't answered my question. Go read what Seattle posted, and I'll give you half credit.

 

[Mazulu]

You have seen or experienced something that you don't understand. If you can test it then it's psychic phenomena. If it's not testable or repeatable under the same circumstances then it's just something in your head that you can't identify.

True psychic phenomena (if that were to actually exist) would be testable in a double blind test. That has never been achieved however.

People see things all the time. People in a group even see different things all the time. Some people see lights that they don't understand and they are sure it's a flying saucer. Others identify the lights as coming from a weather balloon.

What came before the Big Bang? I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. Can it be attributed to some force beyond our current scientific understanding...sure. As I said...you and I don't know.

Not knowing, not knowing what physics we may (or may not) discover in the future is not the same as saying that it's supernatural.

When one doesn't (and can't know) it's not reasonable to make up something in the supernatural. It may seem reasonable to you if you insert "God" there but the logic is exactly the same if you insert "Mr. Bunny Rabbit" there.

You (I'm going out on a limb here) are pretty sure (not positive) that Mr. Bunny Rabbit isn't behind the Big Bang (as am I) but you can't be certain (nor can I).

The problem with the religious argument is that you (again I'm guessing) and others are much more certain that God is behind the Big Bang than you are of it being Mr. Bunny Rabbit and you shouldn't be.

Seattle, the problem with your argument is that nobody has seen Mr. Bunny behind the big bang. However, the Holy Bible of Christianity says that God claims responsibility for creating it. Lot's of people have experienced or witnessed God, Jesus, beings of light, spirits, dead relatives, entities, and various other strange phenomena. But nobody has seen the flying spagetti monster, the tooth fairy, or any of the other absurd atheists rebuttals. So, logically speaking, maybe God did create the universe. But inall fairness, if you don't want to be religious, you don't have to be. It's a personal choice and it's free will (no matter what the Christians say).

 

[Mazulu]

So you saw the Angel of Death - fuck that! not a good sign at all.
I'd much prefer to have Michael the Archangel between me and Death.

Yeah, this happened in the French Quarter while my mom worked at the Voodoo museum as a reader. But it was still spectacular.